This video proves Einstein (that guy) was wrong: Sabine sent a message back in time this year, when she learned the Nobel Prize winners, and told herself to make this video!
How spooky that she predicted all three names correctly! I have actually won a bet with one of my friends today regarding the winners of 2022 Nobel in Physics due to this video. 😍
I read a book, "Entanglement", by Amir Aczel; the book went into detail about Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, and their experiments. It wasn't that big of a stretch, to figure they would win the Nobel Physics prize.
Sabine, I won't pretend to understand the matter you've explained in such detail. But I do find it all terribly interesting! Thanks for your fabulous presentations.
Those of us (well, me at least), who are interested non-specialists in this sea of complexity, speculation and inconsistent expert opinion, need to find a few people in the field whom we decide to trust, who don't talk down to us, but neither do they oversimplify. Sabine is, obviously, someone I view in that light.
Theres nothing to understand. Anything which beggins with "quantum" is bs. Quantum theory- its bs. Quantum computing- bs. Quantum teleportation - hmm let me think...more bs ?
Can Superdeterminism be summarized in every point of the universe already knows of every other point in the universe (because of common big bang history) and in effect be "holographic" in the original sense, as that from any slice contains (theoretical) the information of the whole? If that's case, I must say, it's a sorrow attempt to save locality.
@@eljcd I've also had discussions about it with Sabine and other commenters on Backreaction. It was a fair bit to get my head around when I started digging in more.
@@georgelionon9050 Particles don’t have knowledge. Super determinism is just that when you add the measurement into the equation it causes a statistical correlation that collapses the wave function. In other words, now we observe more information about the particle we can better predict its outcome. Surely all particles may have been entangled in some way during the Big Bang. After all, Energy cannot be created or destroyed so the some of the parts make up the whole. That doesn’t mean that by measuring one particle we can calculate the universe. Superdetermism is really not about preserving locality or quantum entanglement. If information can be transferred faster than the speed of light, then let’s prove its mechanism. Let’s transfer information faster than light … even if it requires us to entangle particles and initially send them away less than the speed of light. Instead of just saying spooky action at a distance just is.
I adore this. I love how QM has this loophole that allows something to travel instantaneously from Alice to Bob but you can't tell what's traveled unless you send something else that's limited by the speed of light. The universe is like a cheap lawyer squinting at its own fine print. :-)
@@david203 Actually there is. But you cannot make use of it to send information you want. The particle decides on the information it wants and then sends it faster-than-light to it's partner. That's what the bell experiment suggests.
@@georgelionon9050 Unfortunately, she didn't explain how the information is "mixed" with the entangled particle. But in any case, her measurement of it after that creates a "hash" of what the information is. That's why she has to send how she measured it to the other end. When that same measurement is used, the "hash" reveals the information she mixed in the first particle. To understand how that works is not really what she explained, just that it can work. It's still very confusing, but the principle is that the information itself is never sent, so it can't be intercepted in any way. The information about her measurement could be, but it's no help to the interceptor because they have no access to the second particle. In this sense, it's a foolproof encryption. There is no communication between the particles.
@@robertbutsch1802 In time and in place because that video was made in some place in space where the Earth (and the entire solar system with the Earth) will NEVER come back to! Even if the solar system does a full circle around the galaxy, the galaxy itself would have moved entirely from that spot! A RUclipsr named Dialect has a video about this very topic! Called "Why you can't travel backwards in space" and I'm inspired from there!
I find your presentation challenging but pitched just at the right level for non specialists willing to make the effort to understand a little more of the marvels of the universe, Thanks.
The metaphor I like to use is a pair of magic treasure chests: Putting an object in one chest and closing the lid teleports it into the other, regardless of how far apart they are. However, upon closing the lid, this generates a magic key that must be used to open the other chest. The key must be transported classically, below the speed of light. You can try to force open the 'receiver' chest without the key, but that destroys whatever is inside. So it's not not really good for transportation, but security.
If this is an accurate analogy, it really helps me understand it. What I don’t get is why quantum teleport something at all when you still have to send other information classically? Is it only useful for encryption and that’s it?
Of some reason this reminds me of how some shopkeepers in Baldur's Gate shared their inventory. So you could sell an item to one merchant and then buy it back from another... 😉
@@thurston2235 Well, presumably it's physically *unhackable* encryption, which has it's value. And though the cost of the quantum computers needed to do it would exceed most practical expenses, I can see it being worth it for governments handling top secret data. Say, nuclear weapons codes. The other potential benefit depends on the "key" size versus the size of the message. If the "key" is "smaller/shorter" than the message, then that might be useful. There's a great lecture on this site by Microsoft computer scientists explaining the math of it all. It's under 2 hours and is actually *very* approachable.
Thanks for this one, Sabine. I've been trying to figure out why quantum teleportation couldn't be used for FTL communications for a long time - you've just explained it in a nutshell for me! The information on the measurement still needs to be transmitted at the speed of light. Much appreciated!!
Since Dr. Sabin would not provide the list of the papers she sited in the video, here is the list for anyone interested: 2:11 Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? 4:10 On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. 9:20 Experimental Realization of Teleporting an Unknown Pure Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolosky-Rosen channel.(DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1121) 9:20 Experimental quantum teleportation (DOI: 10.1038/37539) 9:27 First Object Teleported from Earth to Orbit - MIT technology review. The research article of 9:27 news: Ground-to-satelite quantum teleportation. (DOI: 10.1038/nature23675)
Friends and Family Teleportation Plan: "I'm sorry Dave. My teleporter is stuck in an infinite Verizon Mobius loop, and exceeded my data limit. Some of your body parts are still in the cloud. Please hold while I contact Alice and Bob at tech support."
Happy to see you laying the ground about Superdeterminism. I'm just a physics enthusiast, but have already watched your seminar "Rethinking Superdeterminism" and it's what makes more sense to me about Quantum Mechanics, because it preserves both realism and locality. Either that or the Many Worlds Interpretation, but you have already stated in a previous video that MWI doesn't resolve the measurement problem.
@@brothermine2292 Because nonlocality implies faster than light interactions without faster than light communication in order to not violate Einsteins' General Relativity
@@Davidsasz1239 : Nonlocality does NOT imply something traveled faster than light. We don't understand space or spacetime well enough to know that there aren't shortcuts (for example, wormholes) connecting distant points of space or connecting distant points of a quantum field.
I can kinda sorta see the benefit of quantum teleportation now. Am I right to say that whatever measurement data you'd have to send is relatively lightweight compared to the information/quantum state that you teleport? Which in turn achieves much faster and more secure means of transporting information and potentially objects?
Sigh... no. Except for maybe something like a cypher key to decrypt information. All "quantum teleportation" does is give you a formula to derive the same results of observation on a similar object's state. An analogy is that Alice and Bob have the same exam questions on a test (entangled pair). Alice sends Bob a cheat sheet of the answers to the questions. Bob can now ace his exam without even looking at his test.
@@jamestheotherone742 I "love" it when scientists just hand wave over this kind of understanding and treat it as some form of magic.Why? Why do they do this? What's their end game?
@@jamestheotherone742 what killjoy James is actually trying to say is that as far as we know you can’t actually transmit “more” information “faster.” As far as we know, but Sabine herself didn’t commit to that, which is telling. What we know now is that it is a more secure way to send certain information, like encryption keys.
I study Physics at the University of Vienna and seeing Prof. Zeilinger's name here is so cool! Had the pleasure to work with him during a seminar and he is a very chill guy! It would be amazing, if he got a Nobel Prize and definitely a big motivational boost for his team, his students and for the entire faculty (not saying that we aren't motivated but a little boost is always a good thing!)! Great Video as always!
Thank you Sabine for broadening my horizons even further. I love physics but am not intelligent enough to take it any further than a hobby. In a way I guess I'm more into theoretical physics as I spend a lot of time thinking about things I don't understand!
Don't put down your ability to understand my friend! Currently, nobody understands Quantum Mechanics! It is illogical, because using incorrectly defined fundamental elements. Everything starts making sense when the fundamental elements are correctly defined. Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@stevealston201 Honestly, one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of Sabine is that she is not like other 'normal' people, and neither am I, nor are many people who are good friends of mine. I hope you find fellow nonconformists to spend time with online and in the flesh. And have patience with learning this stuff, it does add up over months, I've found. I am slightly less of an idiot than I was this time last year. :-9
@@stevealston201 bipolar is one of the most common misdiagnoses for someone who is autistic and has childhood trauma. as such if you feel like the bipolar treatment just seems to make you feel worse and less relatable you might want to do some research on autism and you might find out you're not as alone or different as you think. just with the wrong people.
It would be nice if they had a Nobel for Basic Science Research in general. There's no Nobel for Biology. Medicine, yes, but not general biology. There should be Nobel prizes awarded to Ecology research, for example, that have nothing to do with medicine.
It would be very nice to have video about loopholes in bell experiments. Because there are plenty of them, and experiments handle several of them but not all at once. My favorite is following: proposed way of measurement is random, but most of experiments actually do multiple experiments with fixed way of measurement. Of course you could calculate expectation value by rearranging sum, but you can't claim that rearranging experiment doesn't have any side-effects.
To be able to accuratly predict this years Noble winners imo points to superdeterminism a the correct interpretation of QM. Now serious: Amazing prediction Sabine!
Very cool Sabine. I hope you find/discover what you are learning/researching in your study/experiments. Hey, quantum teleportation will eliminate vehicles and roads. Welcome to the digital age of traffic jams lol. Thank you for the updated information. It is really interesting to see how much consciousness understands today with the passing of knowledge from one generation to the next. And even though it takes a few more generations of consciousness to think it out in the future. Good to see old knowledge is preserved.
Thanks Albert, thanks John, thanks Alain, thanks Sabine (our quantum Jedi) Not available to watch videos every week, but sitting down with a cup or tea, coffee, cocoa.. and binge watching them is equally fun, informative. Question in here: Alice generates Entangled State Alice has 1 part of entangled state Bob has 1 part of entangled state (2nd part) Alice takes her quantum information and mixes it together with her-end of the Entangled State. Alice takes a measurement and records XYZ, good. *Note: this measurement is unique to Alice's Quantum information + Entangled State = XYZ measurement. 1. The XYZ measurement only partly tells Alice what the state of the mixed system is in. 2. Making an observation on one end of the Entangled State will determine the state on Bob's end as well. By making the XYZ measurement, Alice pushes the information on her end of the Entangled State over to Bob's part of Entangled State. How does Bob get this information out? Bob needs to know the outcome of Alice's measurement - to understand the information-updated(?) on his end of Entangled State. Bob needs to know the XYZ Measurement. Alice lets Bob know the outcome of her XYZ measurement. Pondering: 1. How does Alice send her XYZ measurement to Bob? 2. Quantum entanglement, teleportation is instantaneous, yes? Question: Is there a way to sent XYZ measurement to Bob using an Entangled State that he can read as-is? Is the XYZ measurement sent at a relative snail-pace, using a non-entangled state? Thank you, Mark
Really great video, thank you! I'm wondering - is there any theory about the density/amount of the measurement outcome information that Alice sends to Bob, compared to the amount of information Bob gets from the uncovering the quantum state on his end? Meaning, can Alice send a smaller amount of measurement information than the amount of quantum state information Bob can uncover by using that measurement outcome information?
Great video as always, there is only one thing to point out: in another video you explained how Einstein referred to quantum measurement, and not entanglement, when he said "spooky action at a distance".
For the first time, we have the engineering and production capability to realize some astounding things with regard to quantum physics. Its going to be a really interesting next twenty years...
It's a case of turning the theorizing and turning it into practical applications. Even then such applications need to be commercialized to make it worthwhile for a company to bring them market.
It's important to note that quantum teleportation is not a cloning technique. If for example quantum teleportation techniques are ever advanced to the point where all the information about a physical object can be extracted and used to recreate an exact copy of the object at a different location, then the process of extracting that information will in effect destroy the original (or at least leave it in state that is unrecognizable from its original state). No need to lose sleep wondering what would happen if you were teleported to your favorite vacation spot, and upon returning home you were greeted at the door by yourself.
No, anyone can do it. It takes a true expert to get it right. In the case of physics, almost all physicists get something wrong when it comes to explaining QM experiments for the simple basic reason that our natural physical intuition was not created by functioning the tiny domain of the atom or smaller. It took me a long time to accept such widespread ignorance in physics, because it attempts to be so rigorous and because its primary tool is mathematics, which actually is rigorous and always correct since it is based on the concept of proof. Physics is necessarily based on theory, observation, and correction (the scientific method).
Quantum encryption seems to me one of the most beautiful ways to demonstrate that encryption does not add information (and hence the use of quantum teleportation to enable quantum encryption does not violate the lightspeed limit of (classical) information transmission)
Sorry but I have to say this is not a very revealing contribution. It seems that Sabine has stirred a hornets nest of ambiguity, incomplete concepts & a dearth of experimentally established fact. Even the issue to light speed violation (or not) is not well presented.
What about the experiments that show that the observed is always affected by the observer? This is far more interesting as it suggests that the universe only exists in the mind. The significance of this is huge for our peace of mind.
Hi Sabine, since time and space are linked via spacetime, can two particles become entangled in the time domain and not just the space domain? Forgive my ignorance (which is limitless unfortunately) but it seems to me that some kind of temporal entanglement might explain the double slit/quantum eraser experiment results. Apologies for the wild speculation but I haven't been able to find any info regarding the possibility of temporal superposition and why it may or may not exist anywhere.
@@georgelionon9050 EXACTLY! This IS a site about our inability to truly KNOW DEFINITEIVELY anything, anyway! Besides, kittamons DO already understand their orientation in our Universe!
One should not mention cats in the context of quantum mechanics - this is widely regarded as politicaly incorrect. Nowadays, one uses lawyers for that purpose.
The most important achievement of the quantum science is to close plot holes caused by lazy story wirting in science fiction movies. "This is impossible!" "No. Because we use quantum [random buzzword]."
Tut tut! There are two serious conceptual errors in that description of EPR(B). Firstly, it fails "the ping pong ball test": there's nothing peculiar about bipartite systems having (antii-)correlated properties no matter how far apart the component systems are. In order to grasp what's interesting about the quantum - entangled - case it's crucial to understand that for entanglement to occur it's necessary that there be (at least two) incompatible observables of each component involved. Secondly, and relatedly but slightly more subtly, it's important to understand that it's not true that the outcome of the observation on one component system determines the *value* of the corresponding property on the other. It determines the *outcome* of the corresponding measurement *if that measurement is done*.
What a lot of people do not understand is that a particle's spin is determined when it is measured. The spin of the entangled particle is locked in when the first particle is measured, no matter how far away the entangled particle is. As far as Relativity and simultaneity goes there are odd implications.
How do you know that it could not already be a property before it is measured? In fact the idea that it is some random value chosen when the measurement takes place seems absurd. It is more like this. Two people meet and one gives a specific amount of money to the other. If I measure one of them (i.e ask them how much they are in debt or owed) then it tells me the state of the other. I think maybe you just are not expressing yourself correctly. It is not determined when it is measured, it becomes known when it is measured.
Sure, but that exponential rise in papers is still citing that particular study. So however you look at it there is exponentially more work being done from that particular foundation.
yea that’s sort of the her point haha. people are doing research…. also i don’t think nuance on the topic is lost on her she’s just making a point. you have an anime pfp sit down.
@@billyt8868 - i agree she knows this, but she should mention it, since it totally undermines her point. Almost everything paper will be cited more as time goes on, because there's exponentially more papers to do the citing as time goes on.
I thought entanglement was just a form of correlation, while "spooky action at a distance" referred to the collapse of the waveform for any measurement.
Yes. "spooky action at a distance" was a singularly poor analogy for the concept Einstein was trying to express. Almost as bad as Schrodinger's Cat. It enabled quantum mechanics literalism instead of disputing it as was intended.
Would be nice to know what the "measurement" actually entails. Is it just some numerical value or is it some complicated value expressed as a function? This always bugged me.
Sabine seems to have changed her mind since about what Einstein was talking about in the 'spooky action at a distance' comment? And whether that 2022 Nobel was all that deserved.
Great video again as always sabine, if possible can you do a video on your thoughts and opinions on quantized inertia? I've gotten really I to the topic lately and was wondering how viable it actually is
I mean, I get how Bell's Inequality works, but I don't understand it? I think I know how it works with Superdeterminism? Help? I still enjoyed the video of course. That cannon sounds awesome with my new headphones at any rate. :-)
On entangled states: if A is observed and so B becomes determined, was B always determined, or did B become determined when A was observed, or does B become determined when B is later observed?
question: suppose that the sender and the receiver plan out far in advance exactly what measurement types they will do on what entangled pairs. with this sort of pre scripting, could quantum teleportation then be used to send new inormation faster than light?
To further elaborate, sequence of measurements needed to be done on the receiver side depends on the measurement outcome in the sender side. So it doesn't help receiver at all to know what sender does
No you can't, because you can't force the outcome of the measurement. But if the sender and receiver later meet up and compare notebooks, they'll see that they match.
I was thinking it still wouldn't be faster than light because of the information exchange that took place earlier happened slower than light, but still an interesting idea to turn something small into something big -- quantum compression? :)
So, Sabine transmits information to me. I have only a vague understanding of the information. She was not aware beforehand how poor is my understanding. So quantum theory is not violated. Is that right?
I think that a particle in superposition is simply carrying an array of energy states through the universe, and when it interacts with something, it transfers that array of energy states to what it interacts with. That transfer of energy states carries across all fields at the cosmic speed limit. So in a manner of speaking, it "de-coheres" each "slice" of the universe from each other, because you can only ever interact with one energy state of a particle at a time. So when you measure an entangled particle and discover one of two outcomes, you discover both of one of two outcomes, and both versions of your discovery de-cohere from each other.
I love that graph of EPR citation rate over time. Einstein may have been wrong about spooky action at a distance, but he was right that understanding entanglement would eventually be key to progress in the field.
Please help us understand "ghost" imaging.... Ghost imaging (also called "coincidence imaging", "two-photon imaging" or "correlated-photon imaging") is a technique that produces an image of an object by combining information from two light detectors: a conventional, multi-pixel detector that doesn't view the object, and a single-pixel (bucket) detector that does view the object.[1] Two techniques have been demonstrated.
Quantum Mechanics start to make sense only if you have correctly defined fundamental elements. Modern science is using incorrect defined fundamental elements and is running in "puzzles" and "mysteries" Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@cowlinator The 'alternative' is being studied, but that work is not seen in the correct perpective (IMO). The 'ocean' includes the Higgs Boson, the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy, the 'vacuum', black holes, the ultra cold, gravitational waves and mass, none of which have a quantum definition. Reality is not made from sparkles, it is made of spacetime.
@@AmbivalentInfluence Yes my friend, but unfortunately, they - (not me) is the ones who say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics. I am offering correct fundamental principles, which on easy therms explaining all these currently unsolved puzzles. Regards
What information is an observer ALWAYS blocked from seeing? Events that are space-like separated from an observer. Let's describe a system using two space-time numbers (aka quaternions) series (more than one space-time number). We call this one "up along x": |(0, 1, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0, 0)> and "down along y": |(0, 0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 1, 0)>. Part of the joy of using space-time numbers instead of complex numbers is that one can mimic what happens on a light table with all kinds of bends in the path with numbers themselves, hence the "down along j" in practice. So for an apparatus that makes measurements along the i and j axis, the other possibility is "up along y": |(0, 0, 1, 0) (0, 0, 0, 0)> and"down along x":(0, 0, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0, 0)>. These two states are ortho-normal: = = (1, 0, 0, 0) and = = (0, 0, 0, 0). One of my pet peeves is the universal practice of reporting on the first digit and not the other 3. The other 3 are always zero, meaning the location of the probability is at the observer location in 3D space. Probability without a location in space is meaningless. Oops, I forgot, physicists always use complex numbers so are missing not a variable per se, but an idea that is necessary to make quantum mechanics a reasonable subject to understand. An example of an entangled state is up + down, or 1/2(|(0, 1, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0, 0)> + |(0, 0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 1, 0)>) + 1/2(|(0, 0, 1, 0) (0, 0, 0, 0)> + |(0, 0, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0, 0)>). In other words, if one makes a measurement along the x-direction, it can be either up or down, and along the y axis, it can be either up or down, with the same odds. Classical physics does NOT work with space-like separated information ever. Quantum mechanics does work with space-like separated information always. Until one of those two states is measured, that expression is the best one can possibly do. One cannot "sneak-a-peek" at space-like information, it is too far away. Make a measurement along the x-axis and then one knows the value along y. I think physics is missing ideas: to mimic space-time using space-time numbers and space-time number series, particularly the space-like separated space-time number series.
Yes - I fully agree on your Nobel-List … In other matters: Did you already do a clip on Nick Herbert's patent application for "superluminal communication", and the - finally killing - "No-Cloning Theorem" (by Wootters et al, and others)? Sabine: fantastic channel!
I've been really thinking about this since the bomb video. I feel like what is happening with Alice and Bob operates under same underlying principle with the bomb example. I initially thought the "waveform" of a photon (or a particle with momentum) would only travel one dimensionally (time) and the probabilities maybe can be calculated with the sum of all possible locations within certain time when it gets collapsed into 3D coordinates. That doesn't explain everything so I even imagined about a casuality-reversed (how weird) particle going back to the origin from final location. In this imagination, an observer will see a pair of photons traveling together, so it cannot be true. Anyway, It really piqued my interest. Maybe, I will get a textbook about quantum mechanics to understand the actual math.
Sabine used quantum mechanics a year ago to predict this week's Nobel Prize winners! Congrats!
No, she thought she had the answer but she was entangled with the newfangled ideas.
yeet
Nope, this is called superdeterminism ! It’s a prediction !
I'm waiting for her head to start spinning around like Linda Blair in the exorcist.
This video proves Einstein (that guy) was wrong: Sabine sent a message back in time this year, when she learned the Nobel Prize winners, and told herself to make this video!
How spooky that she predicted all three names correctly! I have actually won a bet with one of my friends today regarding the winners of 2022 Nobel in Physics due to this video. 😍
I read a book, "Entanglement", by Amir Aczel; the book went into detail about Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, and their experiments. It wasn't that big of a stretch, to figure they would win the Nobel Physics prize.
Spooky at any distance!
@@starguy2718 Aczel is deserving of great respect. Much more so than
poseur/ass Brian Greene
@@starguy2718 like picking a trifecta in a three horse race (you still have 5 ways to get it wrong)
Sabine, I won't pretend to understand the matter you've explained in such detail. But I do find it all terribly interesting! Thanks for your fabulous presentations.
I feel the same way, most of the time I understand about 5% of what she’s talking about but I can’t stop watching.
Those of us (well, me at least), who are interested non-specialists in this sea of complexity, speculation and inconsistent expert opinion, need to find a few people in the field whom we decide to trust, who don't talk down to us, but neither do they oversimplify. Sabine is, obviously, someone I view in that light.
Theres nothing to understand. Anything which beggins with "quantum" is bs. Quantum theory- its bs. Quantum computing- bs. Quantum teleportation - hmm let me think...more bs ?
@@GamesBond.007 Then prove it bs and pick up your Nobel Prize.
Oh wait, you're just talking out your ass. Stfu.
Probably the best deep science channel on YT, although PBS Space Time is excellent too.
Whoever disproves Bell will get the No-Bell prize. Seems fair enough.
Seems FAR enough 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Here, take my angry like, I loved it and it's awful
@@vicca4671 Lol thanks
Hopefully will receive the award in absentia.
Yeap
Can't wait to hear more on your progress on superdeterminism. Keep us updated!
Ditto!
Can Superdeterminism be summarized in every point of the universe already knows of every other point in the universe (because of common big bang history) and in effect be "holographic" in the original sense, as that from any slice contains (theoretical) the information of the whole?
If that's case, I must say, it's a sorrow attempt to save locality.
Sabine post her papers in the arxiv, and coments them in her blog, backreaction, if you are interested.
@@eljcd I've also had discussions about it with Sabine and other commenters on Backreaction. It was a fair bit to get my head around when I started digging in more.
@@georgelionon9050
Particles don’t have knowledge. Super determinism is just that when you add the measurement into the equation it causes a statistical correlation that collapses the wave function. In other words, now we observe more information about the particle we can better predict its outcome.
Surely all particles may have been entangled in some way during the Big Bang. After all, Energy cannot be created or destroyed so the some of the parts make up the whole.
That doesn’t mean that by measuring one particle we can calculate the universe.
Superdetermism is really not about preserving locality or quantum entanglement. If information can be transferred faster than the speed of light, then let’s prove its mechanism. Let’s transfer information faster than light … even if it requires us to entangle particles and initially send them away less than the speed of light.
Instead of just saying spooky action at a distance just is.
I want a T-shirt with "that's what we'll talk about tuday" and another with Einstein's face "yes, this guy again"
I want an entire range of T-shirts based on this channel.
Yes yes yes!
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into this :)
@@SabineHossenfelder I will throw more money at this channel for t-shirts!
I’ll buy that Einstein t-shirt!
I adore this. I love how QM has this loophole that allows something to travel instantaneously from Alice to Bob but you can't tell what's traveled unless you send something else that's limited by the speed of light. The universe is like a cheap lawyer squinting at its own fine print. :-)
Unfortunately, this understanding is incorrect. In entanglement there is no communication of information, instantaneous or not.
@@david203 Unfortunately, it's not. Watch the video again. "Your Honor, my client has not technically violated causality."
@@david203 Actually there is. But you cannot make use of it to send information you want. The particle decides on the information it wants and then sends it faster-than-light to it's partner. That's what the bell experiment suggests.
@@georgelionon9050 No, the Bell experiments do not suggest that. Give me a reliable reference.
@@georgelionon9050 Unfortunately, she didn't explain how the information is "mixed" with the entangled particle. But in any case, her measurement of it after that creates a "hash" of what the information is. That's why she has to send how she measured it to the other end. When that same measurement is used, the "hash" reveals the information she mixed in the first particle. To understand how that works is not really what she explained, just that it can work. It's still very confusing, but the principle is that the information itself is never sent, so it can't be intercepted in any way. The information about her measurement could be, but it's no help to the interceptor because they have no access to the second particle. In this sense, it's a foolproof encryption. There is no communication between the particles.
Today Zeilinger, Aspect & Clauser were awarded the Nobel prize for this work. This video could not have been more timely!
This video is not “timely” because it was put up by Sabine more than a year ago. So it is actually spooky action at a distance (in time).
@@robertbutsch1802 Well it could be timely if it violates causality in that the Nobel prize this year sparked the making of the video.
@@robertbutsch1802 In time and in place
because that video was made in some place in space where the Earth (and the entire solar system with the Earth) will NEVER come back to! Even if the solar system does a full circle around the galaxy, the galaxy itself would have moved entirely from that spot!
A RUclipsr named Dialect has a video about this very topic! Called "Why you can't travel backwards in space" and I'm inspired from there!
Seems odd to me that Sabine hasn't made a video directly addressing the fact that local realism has been demonstrated to be false.
Congratulations Sabine! Had to think of your video immediately when I just read the news! 😄
Incredibly well done video, as always
Happy you like it!
@@SabineHossenfelder 6:14 money? (Could you please elaborate)
@@soundtrancecloud5101 many, not money
I’ve been discussing this topic intently in the past couple of months with one of my friends actually, and was very excited when I saw the title.
Sabine is a remarkable educator. I'm happy to find these older video, that let me understand what QM is about.
I find your presentation challenging but pitched just at the right level for non specialists willing to make the effort to understand a little more of the marvels of the universe, Thanks.
The metaphor I like to use is a pair of magic treasure chests:
Putting an object in one chest and closing the lid teleports it into the other, regardless of how far apart they are. However, upon closing the lid, this generates a magic key that must be used to open the other chest. The key must be transported classically, below the speed of light. You can try to force open the 'receiver' chest without the key, but that destroys whatever is inside.
So it's not not really good for transportation, but security.
If this is an accurate analogy, it really helps me understand it. What I don’t get is why quantum teleport something at all when you still have to send other information classically? Is it only useful for encryption and that’s it?
Of some reason this reminds me of how some shopkeepers in Baldur's Gate shared their inventory. So you could sell an item to one merchant and then buy it back from another... 😉
@@thurston2235 Well, presumably it's physically *unhackable* encryption, which has it's value. And though the cost of the quantum computers needed to do it would exceed most practical expenses, I can see it being worth it for governments handling top secret data. Say, nuclear weapons codes.
The other potential benefit depends on the "key" size versus the size of the message. If the "key" is "smaller/shorter" than the message, then that might be useful.
There's a great lecture on this site by Microsoft computer scientists explaining the math of it all. It's under 2 hours and is actually *very* approachable.
Thanks for this one, Sabine. I've been trying to figure out why quantum teleportation couldn't be used for FTL communications for a long time - you've just explained it in a nutshell for me! The information on the measurement still needs to be transmitted at the speed of light. Much appreciated!!
Since Dr. Sabin would not provide the list of the papers she sited in the video, here is the list for anyone interested:
2:11 Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?
4:10 On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox.
9:20 Experimental Realization of Teleporting an Unknown Pure Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolosky-Rosen channel.(DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1121)
9:20 Experimental quantum teleportation (DOI: 10.1038/37539)
9:27 First Object Teleported from Earth to Orbit - MIT technology review.
The research article of 9:27 news: Ground-to-satelite quantum teleportation. (DOI: 10.1038/nature23675)
Nice! Thanks for your work!
"Do you guys just put quantum in front of everything?"
I think that was an Antman 2 quote.
i wanna discover a new species of animal, so i can name its feces, "quantum hyperspace warp drive teleporter"
Friends and Family Teleportation Plan: "I'm sorry Dave. My teleporter is stuck in an infinite Verizon Mobius loop, and exceeded my data limit. Some of your body parts are still in the cloud. Please hold while I contact Alice and Bob at tech support."
I am sure the Nobel Committee had this video in the back of their mind for today's Nobel Prize in Physics!
I’m so confused right now… the title says Nobel prize 2022 but the video was published one year ago 😵😵
@@zyzhang1130 I think she just changed the title now, and the yt algorithm likes it better this way :)))
@@stefanbalauca7481 ohh didn’t know u can do that (even for thumbnail) after the video was posted 😯😯thanks for the info！
Nevertheless good prediction! Maybe the Sabine in the past is quantum entangled with the Sabine in the future? 🤣
Love your videos, Sabine. Greetings from me and my family here in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Greetings back to Rio!
1:03 It is always pleasant to hear Einstein's name pronounced correctly.
Happy to see you laying the ground about Superdeterminism. I'm just a physics enthusiast, but have already watched your seminar "Rethinking Superdeterminism" and it's what makes more sense to me about Quantum Mechanics, because it preserves both realism and locality. Either that or the Many Worlds Interpretation, but you have already stated in a previous video that MWI doesn't resolve the measurement problem.
Why does superdeterminism make more sense to you than nonlocality?
@@brothermine2292 Because nonlocality implies faster than light interactions without faster than light communication in order to not violate Einsteins' General Relativity
@@Davidsasz1239 there are many thing that happen at a quantum level, that are impossible at a macroscopic level, so why not non-locality.
@@Davidsasz1239 : Nonlocality does NOT imply something traveled faster than light. We don't understand space or spacetime well enough to know that there aren't shortcuts (for example, wormholes) connecting distant points of space or connecting distant points of a quantum field.
Top-notch research presented in accessible fashion. Just a great channel by Hossenfelder. Keep up this amazing work.
not research standard text book material
I wonder if Bob and Tom are enjoying their knot that Alice agreed with Bob about?
Collapsed that wave function over a year ago - excellent work!
I can kinda sorta see the benefit of quantum teleportation now. Am I right to say that whatever measurement data you'd have to send is relatively lightweight compared to the information/quantum state that you teleport? Which in turn achieves much faster and more secure means of transporting information and potentially objects?
That's one way to put it, yes.
Good question.
Sigh... no. Except for maybe something like a cypher key to decrypt information. All "quantum teleportation" does is give you a formula to derive the same results of observation on a similar object's state.
An analogy is that Alice and Bob have the same exam questions on a test (entangled pair). Alice sends Bob a cheat sheet of the answers to the questions. Bob can now ace his exam without even looking at his test.
@@jamestheotherone742 I "love" it when scientists just hand wave over this kind of understanding and treat it as some form of magic.Why? Why do they do this? What's their end game?
@@jamestheotherone742 what killjoy James is actually trying to say is that as far as we know you can’t actually transmit “more” information “faster.” As far as we know, but Sabine herself didn’t commit to that, which is telling. What we know now is that it is a more secure way to send certain information, like encryption keys.
I study Physics at the University of Vienna and seeing Prof. Zeilinger's name here is so cool! Had the pleasure to work with him during a seminar and he is a very chill guy! It would be amazing, if he got a Nobel Prize and definitely a big motivational boost for his team, his students and for the entire faculty (not saying that we aren't motivated but a little boost is always a good thing!)! Great Video as always!
Great video for a Physics student for sure!
Congrats your dream comes true!
The three potential Nobel's you cited could be summarised in a Nobel for John Bell, who unfortunately passed away too early.
Indeed :/
Thank you Sabine for broadening my horizons even further. I love physics but am not intelligent enough to take it any further than a hobby. In a way I guess I'm more into theoretical physics as I spend a lot of time thinking about things I don't understand!
Don't put down your ability to understand my friend! Currently, nobody understands Quantum Mechanics! It is illogical, because using incorrectly defined fundamental elements. Everything starts making sense when the fundamental elements are correctly defined. Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 Thanks for that I'm bi polar & don't think much of myself these are my escape from humanity as I don't quite fit in
@@stevealston201 Honestly, one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of Sabine is that she is not like other 'normal' people, and neither am I, nor are many people who are good friends of mine. I hope you find fellow nonconformists to spend time with online and in the flesh.
And have patience with learning this stuff, it does add up over months, I've found. I am slightly less of an idiot than I was this time last year. :-9
@@stevealston201 bipolar is one of the most common misdiagnoses for someone who is autistic and has childhood trauma. as such if you feel like the bipolar treatment just seems to make you feel worse and less relatable you might want to do some research on autism and you might find out you're not as alone or different as you think. just with the wrong people.
Maybe they can send them a “quantum Nobel” in the future.
It's a medal that can be either a Nobel Prize or a subway token, but you can't tell which until you open the box and look at it. :-)
A 50-50 chance of getting the prize
@@sicfxmusic Wait, EA is sponsoring the Nobel prize now?
It would be nice if they had a Nobel for Basic Science Research in general. There's no Nobel for Biology. Medicine, yes, but not general biology. There should be Nobel prizes awarded to Ecology research, for example, that have nothing to do with medicine.
isn't that more of a Temporal Nobel?
Dr Hossenfelder, your videos are the first thing I watch on the weekend. Thank you so much for them. They always end with me wanting more.
It would be very nice to have video about loopholes in bell experiments. Because there are plenty of them, and experiments handle several of them but not all at once. My favorite is following: proposed way of measurement is random, but most of experiments actually do multiple experiments with fixed way of measurement. Of course you could calculate expectation value by rearranging sum, but you can't claim that rearranging experiment doesn't have any side-effects.
Crazy! this video is from one year ago. Thanks
maybe it should be named as ''remote cloning'' instead of teleportation
Indeed, I like that suggestion.
@@SabineHossenfelder No no no, REMOTE *QUANTUM* CLONING!
@@SabineHossenfelder : The name "remote cloning" would fail to draw attention to the destruction of the original.
@@brothermine2292 Good point. "Teleportation" seems to make more sense.
@@loweel2897 Who are you even talking to?
To be able to accuratly predict this years Noble winners imo points to superdeterminism a the correct interpretation of QM. Now serious: Amazing prediction Sabine!
"Quantum teleportation-" boring... "IN SPACE" Whaaaat?!? gasping emoji
Isn't everything in space?
Boring ☺️
Very cool Sabine. I hope you find/discover what you are learning/researching in your study/experiments.
Hey, quantum teleportation will eliminate vehicles and roads. Welcome to the digital age of traffic jams lol.
Thank you for the updated information. It is really interesting to see how much consciousness understands today with the passing of knowledge from one generation to the next. And even though it takes a few more generations of consciousness to think it out in the future. Good to see old knowledge is preserved.
10:20 Are you part of the Nobel prize committee? Good prediction, you were right!
Thanks Sabine for sharing. I always enjoy your videos.
@Sabine, please do a video about the Schrödinger equation, before the probabilities were applied to it.
Thanks Albert, thanks John, thanks Alain, thanks Sabine (our quantum Jedi)
Not available to watch videos every week, but sitting down with a cup or tea, coffee, cocoa.. and binge watching them is equally fun, informative.
Question in here:
Alice generates Entangled State
Alice has 1 part of entangled state
Bob has 1 part of entangled state (2nd part)
Alice takes her quantum information and mixes it together with her-end of the Entangled State.
Alice takes a measurement and records XYZ, good.
*Note: this measurement is unique to Alice's Quantum information + Entangled State = XYZ measurement.
1. The XYZ measurement only partly tells Alice what the state of the mixed system is in.
2. Making an observation on one end of the Entangled State will determine the state on Bob's end as well.
By making the XYZ measurement, Alice pushes the information on her end of the Entangled State over to Bob's part of Entangled State.
How does Bob get this information out?
Bob needs to know the outcome of Alice's measurement - to understand the information-updated(?) on his end of Entangled State.
Bob needs to know the XYZ Measurement.
Alice lets Bob know the outcome of her XYZ measurement.
Pondering:
1. How does Alice send her XYZ measurement to Bob?
2. Quantum entanglement, teleportation is instantaneous, yes?
Question:
Is there a way to sent XYZ measurement to Bob using an Entangled State that he can read as-is?
Is the XYZ measurement sent at a relative snail-pace, using a non-entangled state?
Thank you, Mark
Really great video, thank you! I'm wondering - is there any theory about the density/amount of the measurement outcome information that Alice sends to Bob, compared to the amount of information Bob gets from the uncovering the quantum state on his end?
Meaning, can Alice send a smaller amount of measurement information than the amount of quantum state information Bob can uncover by using that measurement outcome information?
Excellent.... madam you are 100% right... all you three predicted in this video 1 year ago , got noble prize 2022... thanks.
Teleporting cats to people who need them should be the ultimate goal of science.
Teleporting cat bellies to be precise should be the ultimate goal
There are millions of youtube videos that teleport cats into the conscious minds of cat lovers
Nobody needs cats. Or dogs.
Great video as always, there is only one thing to point out: in another video you explained how Einstein referred to quantum measurement, and not entanglement, when he said "spooky action at a distance".
That's right. I mentioned "spooky action at a distance" after I talked about the measurement, which is the same I said in my earlier video.
For the first time, we have the engineering and production capability to realize some astounding things with regard to quantum physics. Its going to be a really interesting next twenty years...
It's a case of turning the theorizing and turning it into practical applications. Even then such applications need to be commercialized to make it worthwhile for a company to bring them market.
It's important to note that quantum teleportation is not a cloning technique. If for example quantum teleportation techniques are ever advanced to the point where all the information about a physical object can be extracted and used to recreate an exact copy of the object at a different location, then the process of extracting that information will in effect destroy the original (or at least leave it in state that is unrecognizable from its original state). No need to lose sleep wondering what would happen if you were teleported to your favorite vacation spot, and upon returning home you were greeted at the door by yourself.
Didn't you say in another video Einstein wasn't talking about entanglement when he said spooky action at a distance? Or was that just a thought?
火鍋大王，在中國就不要翻牆了啦
de fato, é possível que ela estivesse falando de outra coisa mas não sei dizer com certeza.
Here:
ruclips.net/video/Dl6DyYqPKME/видео.html
I think she ment that the spooky action is passing the speed of light with entanglement not the entanglement itself.
Exaktly! I thought the exakt same thing. Also that entanglement were like sending one sock; you know depending on the one you got, the other one
Love your channel. Keeping my fingers crossed for an episode on negative mass.
As an engineer, I love your presentations, Sabine. They make sense of subjects that would fry my brain.
My is fried yet
3:12 I thought you challenged this definition of this phrase in a previous video? I think I prefer that explanation.
Complex subject explained in a simple way. Only true experts can do this 👏
No, anyone can do it. It takes a true expert to get it right. In the case of physics, almost all physicists get something wrong when it comes to explaining QM experiments for the simple basic reason that our natural physical intuition was not created by functioning the tiny domain of the atom or smaller. It took me a long time to accept such widespread ignorance in physics, because it attempts to be so rigorous and because its primary tool is mathematics, which actually is rigorous and always correct since it is based on the concept of proof. Physics is necessarily based on theory, observation, and correction (the scientific method).
@@david203 am I correct in assuming you've never heard of quantum biology?
@@UsernameXOXO No, what makes you think that? I am especially interested in how QM makes photosynthesis much more efficient.
Quantum encryption seems to me one of the most beautiful ways to demonstrate that encryption does not add information (and hence the use of quantum teleportation to enable quantum encryption does not violate the lightspeed limit of (classical) information transmission)
Sorry but I have to say this is not a very revealing contribution. It seems that Sabine has stirred a hornets nest of ambiguity, incomplete concepts & a dearth of experimentally established fact. Even the issue to light speed violation (or not) is not well presented.
The Science is real; Sabine's blouse is hypergeometric.
When you can't understand a topic and Sabine's flair is a welcome distraction XD
@@CAThompson I can't undertstand science as I am a Zebra.
Looking at her blouse? Bad boy. Ha ha. :-)
Her blouse works.
Works well.
I believe ‘Go’ is in the middle. Is she a player? Lol
What about the experiments that show that the observed is always affected by the observer?
This is far more interesting as it suggests that the universe only exists in the mind.
The significance of this is huge for our peace of mind.
Hi Sabine, since time and space are linked via spacetime, can two particles become entangled in the time domain and not just the space domain? Forgive my ignorance (which is limitless unfortunately) but it seems to me that some kind of temporal entanglement might explain the double slit/quantum eraser experiment results. Apologies for the wild speculation but I haven't been able to find any info regarding the possibility of temporal superposition and why it may or may not exist anywhere.
Hello Sabine? When are you going to do Live? Just wanted to say You make Physics Beautiful. I had all your song in my playlist
"Quantum mechanics is booming!" I said.
My clever cat overheard me and fled.
Maybe the cat didn't flee, did you look? Maybe the cat is now in a superposition of having fled or not.
@@georgelionon9050 EXACTLY! This IS a site about our inability to truly KNOW DEFINITEIVELY anything, anyway! Besides, kittamons DO already understand their orientation in our Universe!
@@georgelionon9050 Ha! Y're a wit.
she's still traumatized from schrödinger
One should not mention cats in the context of quantum mechanics - this is widely regarded as politicaly incorrect. Nowadays, one uses lawyers for that purpose.
Fascinating as usual, Sabine. Many thanks.
The most important achievement of the quantum science is to close plot holes caused by lazy story wirting in science fiction movies.
"This is impossible!"
"No. Because we use quantum [random buzzword]."
"Quantum" buzzword is needed when "temporal" buzzword is insufficient.
And in fantasy it's now because of quantum magic.
Interesting and worthwhile video.
Tut tut! There are two serious conceptual errors in that description of EPR(B). Firstly, it fails "the ping pong ball test": there's nothing peculiar about bipartite systems having (antii-)correlated properties no matter how far apart the component systems are. In order to grasp what's interesting about the quantum - entangled - case it's crucial to understand that for entanglement to occur it's necessary that there be (at least two) incompatible observables of each component involved.
Secondly, and relatedly but slightly more subtly, it's important to understand that it's not true that the outcome of the observation on one component system determines the *value* of the corresponding property on the other. It determines the *outcome* of the corresponding measurement *if that measurement is done*.
What a lot of people do not understand is that a particle's spin is determined when it is measured. The spin of the entangled particle is locked in when the first particle is measured, no matter how far away the entangled particle is. As far as Relativity and simultaneity goes there are odd implications.
How do you know that it could not already be a property before it is measured? In fact the idea that it is some random value chosen when the measurement takes place seems absurd. It is more like this. Two people meet and one gives a specific amount of money to the other. If I measure one of them (i.e ask them how much they are in debt or owed) then it tells me the state of the other. I think maybe you just are not expressing yourself correctly. It is not determined when it is measured, it becomes known when it is measured.
"Citations higher now than ever" could just be due to exponential rise in number of papers
Sure, but that exponential rise in papers is still citing that particular study. So however you look at it there is exponentially more work being done from that particular foundation.
Someone should plot the ratio between the amount of papers written and the citations of this one paper
yea that’s sort of the her point haha. people are doing research…. also i don’t think nuance on the topic is lost on her she’s just making a point. you have an anime pfp sit down.
@@billyt8868 - i agree she knows this, but she should mention it, since it totally undermines her point. Almost everything paper will be cited more as time goes on, because there's exponentially more papers to do the citing as time goes on.
Very good point though, but its on the news too. So may be there's some actual rise of citation after all.
I just stumble on your channel and I love it! I subscribed
I thought entanglement was just a form of correlation, while "spooky action at a distance" referred to the collapse of the waveform for any measurement.
Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Yes. "spooky action at a distance" was a singularly poor analogy for the concept Einstein was trying to express. Almost as bad as Schrodinger's Cat. It enabled quantum mechanics literalism instead of disputing it as was intended.
@@jamestheotherone742 That's what Sabine explained in an earlier video about the measurement getting updated rather than the entanglement itself.
@@valentinmalinov8424 sounds like there will be lots of half-explanations in that book
@@mudkip_btw He's a quack.
Pretty interesting indeed! 😃
Thanks a lot, Sabine!!!
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Came here after today’s Nobel prize announcement. Guess you were right!
Thank You Dr Hossenfelder
I NEVER miss one of your videos.
Would be nice to know what the "measurement" actually entails. Is it just some numerical value or is it some complicated value expressed as a function? This always bugged me.
Probably something like "Do you measure the polarisation in the horizontal or the vertical axis".
Yes, it would be nice knowing, but no one really knows 😂
Well done - what a brilliant prediction!
Scientist vs Fanatic
*scientific*
- what is the question?
- then x is the answer
*fanatic*
- x is the answer to everything
- what was your question?
Excellent, that is precisely how 80 trumptards approach everything.
science is the answer to everything. what was you question?
Jesus is the answer. A+ my son. Carry on.
Sabine seems to have changed her mind since about what Einstein was talking about in the 'spooky action at a distance' comment? And whether that 2022 Nobel was all that deserved.
u da best Sabine
Alice is hot
Great video again as always sabine, if possible can you do a video on your thoughts and opinions on quantized inertia? I've gotten really I to the topic lately and was wondering how viable it actually is
I mean, I get how Bell's Inequality works, but I don't understand it? I think I know how it works with Superdeterminism? Help? I still enjoyed the video of course. That cannon sounds awesome with my new headphones at any rate. :-)
"no superdeterminism" is one of the assumptions for Bell's theorem. So with superdeterminism, it doesn't work, basically.
@@SabineHossenfelder Thanks :)
@@SabineHossenfelder Dear Sabine, will you marry me? I love you!
@@Schokland2007 She's already married, and there is no reason for anyone to want to marry some random on the internet. Ew.
@@CAThompson serious guy you are!
Interesting video pushing the horizon of understanding.
Quantum mirror on the wall, who is the cleverest of us all.
On entangled states: if A is observed and so B becomes determined, was B always determined, or did B become determined when A was observed, or does B become determined when B is later observed?
Subscribed, I love finding awesome new channels very informative thank you!
question: suppose that the sender and the receiver plan out far in advance exactly what measurement types they will do on what entangled pairs. with this sort of pre scripting, could quantum teleportation then be used to send new inormation faster than light?
information cannot travel faster than light, on the other side, you don't' need to know how fast it travels.
No, you need the measurement outcome from one side and send it to the other side. You don't know what the outcome is in advance.
To further elaborate, sequence of measurements needed to be done on the receiver side depends on the measurement outcome in the sender side. So it doesn't help receiver at all to know what sender does
No you can't, because you can't force the outcome of the measurement. But if the sender and receiver later meet up and compare notebooks, they'll see that they match.
I was thinking it still wouldn't be faster than light because of the information exchange that took place earlier happened slower than light, but still an interesting idea to turn something small into something big -- quantum compression? :)
Congratulations Sabine for this recommendation
Really missed the "yes, this guy again"
This is the best explanation for Quantum Teleportation I've seen so far.
"Do you just put the word 'quantum' before anything?" - Antman
Thank you! Great video
So, Sabine transmits information to me. I have only a vague understanding of the information. She was not aware beforehand how poor is my understanding. So quantum theory is not violated. Is that right?
Did I transmit my nonplussed state to you, or vice versa?
I think that a particle in superposition is simply carrying an array of energy states through the universe, and when it interacts with something, it transfers that array of energy states to what it interacts with. That transfer of energy states carries across all fields at the cosmic speed limit. So in a manner of speaking, it "de-coheres" each "slice" of the universe from each other, because you can only ever interact with one energy state of a particle at a time. So when you measure an entangled particle and discover one of two outcomes, you discover both of one of two outcomes, and both versions of your discovery de-cohere from each other.
I liked when the lady said "high Albert" to his portrait. Nobel Prize has been managed very bad for decades by politicians - useless reward.
I love that graph of EPR citation rate over time. Einstein may have been wrong about spooky action at a distance, but he was right that understanding entanglement would eventually be key to progress in the field.
Looking forward to the non-quantum revolution!
Then you have to look back
Please help us understand "ghost" imaging....
Ghost imaging (also called "coincidence imaging", "two-photon imaging" or "correlated-photon imaging") is a technique that produces an image of an object by combining information from two light detectors: a conventional, multi-pixel detector that doesn't view the object, and a single-pixel (bucket) detector that does view the object.[1]
Two techniques have been demonstrated.
Trying to define reality with QM is equivalent to trying to describe the ocean by studying fish and seaweed.
Perhaps. And there is no alternative.
Quantum Mechanics start to make sense only if you have correctly defined fundamental elements. Modern science is using incorrect defined fundamental elements and is running in "puzzles" and "mysteries" Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 My point is not about how easy or difficult QM is to understand, it is about seeing it in the correct perspective.
@@cowlinator The 'alternative' is being studied, but that work is not seen in the correct perpective (IMO). The 'ocean' includes the Higgs Boson, the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy, the 'vacuum', black holes, the ultra cold, gravitational waves and mass, none of which have a quantum definition. Reality is not made from sparkles, it is made of spacetime.
@@AmbivalentInfluence Yes my friend, but unfortunately, they - (not me) is the ones who say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics. I am offering correct fundamental principles, which on easy therms explaining all these currently unsolved puzzles. Regards
Thank you for explaining Bell’s theorem simply, perhaps you could make an in-depth explanation of it?
I know!
Sabine is a Fremen !?!
The blueish glow in her eye… Sabine, i see you…
Your a user of the “spice Melange”!
She does have a ridiculous amount of knowledge.
@@CAThompson She may be a “mentat”
@@gjolau Wouldn't surprise me. :)
What information is an observer ALWAYS blocked from seeing? Events that are space-like separated from an observer. Let's describe a system using two space-time numbers (aka quaternions) series (more than one space-time number). We call this one "up along x": |(0, 1, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0, 0)> and "down along y": |(0, 0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 1, 0)>. Part of the joy of using space-time numbers instead of complex numbers is that one can mimic what happens on a light table with all kinds of bends in the path with numbers themselves, hence the "down along j" in practice. So for an apparatus that makes measurements along the i and j axis, the other possibility is "up along y": |(0, 0, 1, 0) (0, 0, 0, 0)> and"down along x":(0, 0, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0, 0)>. These two states are ortho-normal: = = (1, 0, 0, 0) and = = (0, 0, 0, 0). One of my pet peeves is the universal practice of reporting on the first digit and not the other 3. The other 3 are always zero, meaning the location of the probability is at the observer location in 3D space. Probability without a location in space is meaningless. Oops, I forgot, physicists always use complex numbers so are missing not a variable per se, but an idea that is necessary to make quantum mechanics a reasonable subject to understand.
An example of an entangled state is up + down, or 1/2(|(0, 1, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0, 0)> + |(0, 0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 1, 0)>) + 1/2(|(0, 0, 1, 0) (0, 0, 0, 0)> + |(0, 0, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0, 0)>). In other words, if one makes a measurement along the x-direction, it can be either up or down, and along the y axis, it can be either up or down, with the same odds. Classical physics does NOT work with space-like separated information ever. Quantum mechanics does work with space-like separated information always. Until one of those two states is measured, that expression is the best one can possibly do. One cannot "sneak-a-peek" at space-like information, it is too far away. Make a measurement along the x-axis and then one knows the value along y.
I think physics is missing ideas: to mimic space-time using space-time numbers and space-time number series, particularly the space-like separated space-time number series.
I thought "spooky action at a distance" WASN'T about entanglement. Has Sabine changed her mind?
No, it is about entanglement.
Can you really know where exactly somebody stands on an issue And how fast the person is changing its mind?
Right. Is it a false memory or did she say something like that recently?
@@johnkeck Sabine made a video on the subject recently.
ruclips.net/video/Dl6DyYqPKME/видео.html
@@brendanward2991 Maybe we should give her a break. You have to admit it's a real challenge to keep one's attention-grabbing one-liners straight! Lol
Yes - I fully agree on your Nobel-List …
In other matters: Did you already do a clip on Nick Herbert's patent application for "superluminal communication", and the - finally killing - "No-Cloning Theorem" (by Wootters et al, and others)?
Sabine: fantastic channel!
Alles ist quantum.
Lang lebe Einstein!
Interesting stuff. Thankyou Sabine.
I've been really thinking about this since the bomb video. I feel like what is happening with Alice and Bob operates under same underlying principle with the bomb example. I initially thought the "waveform" of a photon (or a particle with momentum) would only travel one dimensionally (time) and the probabilities maybe can be calculated with the sum of all possible locations within certain time when it gets collapsed into 3D coordinates. That doesn't explain everything so I even imagined about a casuality-reversed (how weird) particle going back to the origin from final location. In this imagination, an observer will see a pair of photons traveling together, so it cannot be true.
Anyway, It really piqued my interest. Maybe, I will get a textbook about quantum mechanics to understand the actual math.
Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"